New York Times Magazine ran a great article this week on hackers, trolls, and other tech-savvy tricksters who make a living – or at least a hobby – out of, for lack of a better word, fucking with the internet. Some use complex loopholes in the infrastructure of the web to gain access to sensitive information or manipulate economic transactions to turn a profit. Others simply gain pleasure from engaging in social activities that, in essence, make fun of people who take the internet too seriously. These projects can range from the wicked – such as posting flashing videos on epilepsy websites or making fun of friends and family mourning a dead acquaintance – to the hilarious – such as jamming the cell phones of CEOs’ daughters and demanding ransom.
Here’s a link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1&ei=5058&partner=IWON&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
It is easy to see the financial benefits that can be achieved by hacking (despite their illegality). But why do these trolls, who spend long hours posting false information under false identities within a technological tool that is intended to promote the spread of real information, do what they do? Some do it for shits and giggles. But the more philosophically-minded do it out of principle, maintaining that they are trying to reduce silly behavior on the internet by replicating it and shoving it back in the faces of the worst perpetrators.
But does it work? In an ideal world, such tomfoolery would show those who take the internet a bit too seriously the error of their ways, reducing the trite banter and meaningless postings that pollute the web. Trolls who post false wikipedia articles may seem to reduce the credibility of wikipedia, but following deeper consideration, it might actually benefit wikipedia in the long run. This kind of vandalism reminds people that wikipedia is not the gospel truth, which is a good thing; people should not take it as objective knowledge, but rather as a collection of subjective viewpoints. That is part of the contract of a wiki; it is a bargain that all readers and contributers (albeit tacitly) agree to. But at the same time, it could mobilize the members of the wikipedia community to create better standards for posts, better and more fair regulation of troll activity, and new methods of conversational logic. The hope is that the community, not the wiki-authorities-that-be, will be the ones to hold the trolls accountable, for the former has just as much (if not more) of a stake than the latter.
Any other ideas on what role trolls play in the media’s function within a democracy?
